from the go-the-f**k-to-court dept

We've written a few times about now about the book Go The F**k To Sleep, and how it (accidentally) used piracy of the work to become a huge success. We've also written a few times about the issue of jury nullification, and the troubling trend of people being arrested outside of courthouses for passing out documents that explain jury nullification. And here's a story that combines the two ("go the f**k to the jury?").

"It's definitely not such a project of mainstream appeal," Cortes tells Fast Company. "Obviously from my perspective, it would be a beautiful thing if as many people were as interested in this [as Go The Fuck To Sleep]. But I can't perceive Samuel Jackson reading this book aloud."

Apparently he's also going to courthouses to hand out copies himself. Given that we've seen folks getting arrested for the same thing, perhaps he's going to end up getting extra attention for the booklet that way as well...

Reader Comments

Jurors need to religiously nullify all IP laws, at least until the govt passes reasonable laws (ie: not 95+ year copy protection laws). All IP laws should be completely nullified until reasonable laws are passed because doing anything else will not give our corporate government incentive to pass more reasonable laws.

I honestly don't know how I feel about jury nullification in general...

If a person is found guilty of a completely retarded law, that could create enough public outrage to have the law overturned (hopefully in a way that frees the "guilty")

If a person is guilty of a completely retarded law, but found innocent through jury nullification, the law still exists and doesn't prevent the next person from being found guilty of the same retarded law.

Of course, if it were me on trial, I'd probably be all for it, and I'm not particularly against it in any ethical sense.

Re: Re: Re:

but that's not the minority telling the majority what to do, the majority isn't being told how to vote. They're not being told to give money over to someone else, they're not being told to mow the lawn, they're not being told to do anything.

I guess you can call it the minority telling the majority what not to do in a sense that the minority is telling the majority not to kill anyone, but I think the issue here is that this involves level of doubt. Supposedly, the more jurors that agree with something, the more likely it is to be true. but if there is any reasonable doubt, enough to convince one in twelve jurors that there is a reasonable doubt, then we should not risk murdering an innocent person.

Jury Nullification has a sordid history

While Jury Nullification does appeal to those who think that when the democratically elected government fails us, it's time to take matters into our own hands, it is not without its shameful history.

During Jim Crow, jury nullification was used repeatedly by all-white juries to effectively decriminalize murder of minorities. A white man simply could not get convicted for murder of a black man, even if he confessed, there were witnesses, and evidence. The jury just would just refuse to convict him, under the notion that there was nothing wrong with killing a black person.

Ever since desegregation, judges and prosecutors have had a very dim view of nullification...

In America, jurors judge the law itself too.

So much has been swept into the memory hole by people just going along with what some gov't thug tells them. Makes it diffcult for the few who are aware to even get to a jury trial.

By the way, on any traffic infraction (which are /not/ crimes), you should file a written motion for jury trial, and get a dated copy back from the clerk. Whether you wimp out or not, preserve the right: without a written motion, you'll find that right is effectively denied when you get out of traffic court and to a real court. Filing a motion is not difficult. Just put the case number and adversaries on a piece of paper and "Defendant moves for jury trial", and sign it. But beware of tricks. I've had a judge try to hand me that back -- which is a crime, to refuse to accept a motion -- saying it didn't apply. IF there were any justice around, he'd have gone to jail.

Re: Jury Nullification has a sordid history

During Jim Crow, jury nullification was used repeatedly by all-white juries to effectively decriminalize murder of minorities. A white man simply could not get convicted for murder of a black man, even if he confessed, there were witnesses, and evidence. The jury just would just refuse to convict him, under the notion that there was nothing wrong with killing a black person.

On the other side of the coin, jury nullification was also used to invalidate the fugitive slave laws that required non-slavery states to return runaway slaves.

It is also believed the jury nullification played a role in repealing Prohibition.

Re: Re:

It's a good power to have but a sort of weak one. It should be easier for the "people" to have laws overturned. For example, we should create a system where the jury can go beyond just saying "not guilty" but also force the judge to rule on constitutionality of the law or force a referendum to the legislature on repealing the law.

Now, there might be better ways to do that, but still the People need more power than to just stick their tongues out at the law in isolated cases.

It should be noted that book is not really about jury nullification in general. It is specifically about using jury nullification to end the war on peaceful people only some of whom use substances the federal government disapproves of. (also known as the war on drugs by the people who like shooting people who have harmed no one.)

PS: I wholeheartedly approve of the purpose of this book, but I feel this should be mentioned.

Re:

Jury nullification: The ultimate in the minority telling the majority what to do. You only need 1 out 12 to make it happen.

How do you feel about 537 people telling 311 million people what to do?

Does it make it better or worse that the 311 million only have the tiniest way to influence 5 of 537?

No, wait, that's arguably 4 since 2 of the 5 go together.

Well, if we want to be technical, a large portion of the 311 million's votes also don't count since some states only end up one way, and most still have a winner take all electoral vote system. So its down to 3.

Oh, and almost forgot about district gerrymandering, so that further reduces many's votes. Looks like many are down to 2 votes, and they can only exercise them 2 out of 3 election cycles.

And I didn't even have to mention lobbyists yet. What's so great about representative democracy now?

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Josh, and amusing story, but each of those 311 millon voters got a chance to cast their vote. Is it the system's fault that in most states, people tend to vote one side or the other heavily? Did you check out the popular vote (overall) where the winner by electoral college has also been the winner by popular vote almost every time?